grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers
Hi all,

A number of core projects (NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib, Pandas, scikit-learn) got together and put in a proposal to NSF for a large 5 year grant, and it was unfortunately just rejected. We now published the proposal, which may be of interest: https://figshare.com/articles/Mid-Scale_Research_Infrastructure_-_The_Scientific_Python_Ecosystem/8009441.

Those of you who are on Twitter may already know about this. First mention of this rejection on Twitter with a lot of conversation following: https://twitter.com/amuellerml/status/1117455802598662144. Full quote from Andreas Mueller, replying to a tweet that the first ever image of a black hole was built on Matplotlib, SciPy, NumPy, Pandas, Jupyter, AstroPy: "Slightly ironic that in the same week @NSF rejects a grant to fund the scipy ecosystem saying that working on it is not impactful enough and hiring developers to work on it is too expensive." And a follow-up conversation on Twitter about the rejection: https://twitter.com/amuellerml/status/1118617331058475008

This proposal was led by Columbia, who submitted it together with NumFOCUS and Quansight. It was largely written by Andreas Mueller (scikit-learn, also the PI), Andy Terrel (NumFOCUS) and myself (NumPy/SciPy), with a lot of valuable input from Thomas Caswell (Matplotlib), Jeff Reback (Pandas), Gina Helfrich (NumFOCUS), the other co-PIs, the core teams of the projects, and many others who pitched in ideas and advice.

This was the first time we tried a proposal of this scale and ambition (as far as I know), and while it's disappointing that the NSF doesn't seem to value software much (not really news, nor unique to NSF), rejections are a normal part of submitting grant proposals and we now have a much better idea of what it will take to submit further proposals in the future. Which we plan on doing.

Cheers,
Ralf




_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Marten van Kerkwijk
Hi Ralf,

I'm sorry to hear the proposal did not pass the first round, but, having looked at it briefly (about as much time as I would have spent had I been on the panel), I have to admit I am not surprised: it is nice but nice is not enough for a competition like this.

Compared to what will have included some really exciting, novel proposals, most damning will likely have been the modest, incremental goals (for a large sum of money): performance improvements, but without any actual sense of what would now become solvable (how does it beat throwing more computers at a problem, which is cheap?); better implementations of things that exist (arrays with units, sparse arrays); better GPU support (feels like something everybody and their brother was excited about a decade ago); etc.  I also think any panel would expect some concrete examples of facilities that would now be helped: e.g., how is this going to help LSST analyze its 20TB/night of data?

Going forward, best may be to explicitly involve the facilities that use python - within astronomy, that would include LIGO and LSST, but certainly also STScI (and other NASA institutes), which actually supports SPE already. It would be good especially to show how much money it would save them when this is implemented, so that it becomes clear this is a net win. Indeed, for any future proposal, I'd suggest to involve (or at least ask for advice) some more senior people who have been successful before (within astronomy, the likes of Steve Kahn, the LSST director; he was at Columbia for most of his career, so there is a connection).

All best wishes,

Marten


_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Joe Harrington
In reply to this post by ralfgommers
Hi Ralf,

The rejection is disappointing, for sure.  Some good ammo for next time
might be the recommendations in this report from the US National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine:

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_178892

https://www.nap.edu/read/25217/chapter/1#ii

You can download a free PDF if you click around and give them an email
address.  There is some code on the cover that might raise a smile.

Lorena Barba, Kelle Cruz, and many other community members contributed,
both as committee members and as white-paper authors.  While it's a
report for NASA, the conclusions are strong and there is explicit
support of investment in community resources like numpy, scipy, astropy,
matplotlib, etc.  Other agencies are asking similar questions, so I
expect the report to get somewhat of a look at NSF, etc.

A note on the Academies' process: A consensus study report must only
include statements that no single member of the committee objects to,
and the committee generally only includes senior members or people with
a lot of relevant experience.  There were stakeholders from some large
modeling shops for whom openness might be a threat to their business
model, in their eyes, and some of the senior members had never
experienced the open-source environment and had bad experiences sharing
software.  This made for an interesting social dynamic, and prevented an
all-out recommendation to forcibly open everything immediately.  Given
all that, I was ultimately pleased that we got full agreement on the
recommendations we did make.

So, some general thoughts on fundraising, not specific to this proposal:

1. Try NASA.  The Administrator for Space Science, Thomas Zurbuchen, is
pushing "open" very hard, given the success of open data in NASA Earth
Science, and its positive impact on the economy in fields like
agriculture and weather forecasting.  He paid for the study above.  Many
grant programs specifically solicit proposals for open-source tools. 
There are also technology development programs in other parts of NASA
than the Science Mission Directorate.  Try contacting Dr. Michael New,
who is Zurbuchen's deputy, and could direct you to appropriate programs.
(Please, let's be coordinated and not all deluge the guy.)

2. As suggested in another message, it's often easier to get support for
a specific, targeted item as part of a big project or institute using
that item, such as LSST or the black-hole group. There's a certain way
to wend into those projects, usually originating from within.  STScI has
long devoted programmer resources, for example.

3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

4. I mostly lurk here, since being more actively involved in the early
days of numpy docs, so maybe this one  has been tried already, or is in
the works.  My apologies if so.

Think of development as a product to buy.  You could put chunks of
development up for sale, advertise them, and coordinate one or more
groups buying them together.  For something like an efficiency boost,
you could price it according to the avoided cost of CPU resources for a
project of a given size (e.g., somewhat below the net present value of
avoided future AWS cycles for the projects buying it).  It would be like
buying a custom-built data pipeline, except that once you buy it,
everyone gets it.  This might mean scoping out a roadmap of
improvements, packaging them into fundable projects with teams ready to
go, pricing them, advertising them to specific customers and in trade
media and shows, and making sales pitches.

This sounds really weird to us scientists, but it would work just like a
regular purchase for services, which the government and industry are
much more used to doing than donations to open-source projects.

Don't just sell what the customer is buying, sell in the manner that the
customer likes to buy.

5. And, keep trying grant proposals to NSF!

--jh--


On 4/18/19 6:36 AM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A number of core projects (NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib, Pandas,
> scikit-learn) got together and put in a proposal to NSF for a large 5
> year grant, and it was unfortunately just rejected. We now published
> the proposal, which may be of interest:
> https://figshare.com/articles/Mid-Scale_Research_Infrastructure_-_The_Scientific_Python_Ecosystem/8009441.
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Marten van Kerkwijk
Very much second Joe's recommendations - especially trying NASA - which has an amazing track record of open data also in astronomy (and a history of open source analysis tools, as well as the "Astrophysics Data System").
-- Marten

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers
In reply to this post by Marten van Kerkwijk


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:27 PM Marten van Kerkwijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ralf,

Thanks for the feedback Marten, it's very valuable. We've gotten some more feedback from people experienced with applying for or reviewing NSF (and DOE, NASA, NIH) grants, it helps a lot in figuring out what to do next.


I'm sorry to hear the proposal did not pass the first round, but, having looked at it briefly (about as much time as I would have spent had I been on the panel), I have to admit I am not surprised: it is nice but nice is not enough for a competition like this.

Compared to what will have included some really exciting, novel proposals, most damning will likely have been the modest, incremental goals (for a large sum of money):

I'm very aware that's how reviewers will look at it. I don't agree it's true though (not sure if you think that) - the impact on the science NSF supports of spending on the order of 10 million dollars on the SciPy ecosystem will be way higher than of building some new facility, or supporting one more supercomputer, or whatever else will have been proposed.

Another thought, and this does make our job harder, is that it's very difficult to claim to do really novel things. Because whatever we do must in the end pass review from and be accepted by the core teams of each project and the community. Proposing really novel things will mean starting new projects; which is just a different kind of proposal - more easy to sell, likely a lot less impactful.

performance improvements, but without any actual sense of what would now become solvable (how does it beat throwing more computers at a problem, which is cheap?); better implementations of things that exist (arrays with units, sparse arrays); better GPU support (feels like something everybody and their brother was excited about a decade ago); etc.  I also think any panel would expect some concrete examples of facilities that would now be helped: e.g., how is this going to help LSST analyze its 20TB/night of data?

You're completely right - we should have focused more on this, trying to be more concrete. Note that it's very hard to come up with provable statements like "this is what we can do after this proposal that we can't do now", but we must do better here. If anyone has references that we can use that would be very helpful; things like the Decadal Survey in astronomy that state something about the SciPy ecosystem). What we can also do is better elaborate the impact of not maintaining/evolving our projects.


Going forward, best may be to explicitly involve the facilities that use python - within astronomy, that would include LIGO and LSST,

We did, both of those. We also had a senior LIGO person as co-PI, and includes a quote from a LIGO spokesperson about this being critical infrastructure for them.

but certainly also STScI (and other NASA institutes), which actually supports SPE already. It would be good especially to show how much money it would save them when this is implemented, so that it becomes clear this is a net win.

I like that idea.

Indeed, for any future proposal, I'd suggest to involve (or at least ask for advice) some more senior people who have been successful before (within astronomy, the likes of Steve Kahn, the LSST director; he was at Columbia for most of his career, so there is a connection).

We also did that, got advice and a full draft proposal review several times from a former NSF program manager. As well as from the likes of Fernando Perez and Brian Granger at the start and Ryan Abernathy at the end.

Your advice about the kinds of people to get involved is all true, but I don't think this was our main issue because we did all that. Also talking to the PMs, we know that's critical and did that (the government shutdown didn't help here though).

Cheers,
Ralf



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers
In reply to this post by Joe Harrington


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ralf,

The rejection is disappointing, for sure.  Some good ammo for next time
might be the recommendations in this report from the US National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine:

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_178892

https://www.nap.edu/read/25217/chapter/1#ii

Thanks, very useful!



You can download a free PDF if you click around and give them an email
address.  There is some code on the cover that might raise a smile.

Lorena Barba, Kelle Cruz, and many other community members contributed,
both as committee members and as white-paper authors.  While it's a
report for NASA, the conclusions are strong and there is explicit
support of investment in community resources like numpy, scipy, astropy,
matplotlib, etc.  Other agencies are asking similar questions, so I
expect the report to get somewhat of a look at NSF, etc.

A note on the Academies' process: A consensus study report must only
include statements that no single member of the committee objects to,
and the committee generally only includes senior members or people with
a lot of relevant experience.  There were stakeholders from some large
modeling shops for whom openness might be a threat to their business
model, in their eyes, and some of the senior members had never
experienced the open-source environment and had bad experiences sharing
software.  This made for an interesting social dynamic, and prevented an
all-out recommendation to forcibly open everything immediately.  Given
all that, I was ultimately pleased that we got full agreement on the
recommendations we did make.

So, some general thoughts on fundraising, not specific to this proposal:

1. Try NASA.  The Administrator for Space Science, Thomas Zurbuchen, is
pushing "open" very hard, given the success of open data in NASA Earth
Science, and its positive impact on the economy in fields like
agriculture and weather forecasting.  He paid for the study above.  Many
grant programs specifically solicit proposals for open-source tools. 
There are also technology development programs in other parts of NASA
than the Science Mission Directorate.  Try contacting Dr. Michael New,
who is Zurbuchen's deputy, and could direct you to appropriate programs.
(Please, let's be coordinated and not all deluge the guy.)

I agree. NASA is the agency that probably understands our importance and needs the best of any agency, and we have a lot of things to point to that are important to them.


2. As suggested in another message, it's often easier to get support for
a specific, targeted item as part of a big project or institute using
that item, such as LSST or the black-hole group. There's a certain way
to wend into those projects, usually originating from within.  STScI has
long devoted programmer resources, for example.

Maybe that is indeed the way to go. The real goal is maintenance/evolution though, so it's a bit of a stretch. The strategy does work, see Dask & Pangeo, however it would be nicer not to have to spend 80-90% of a budget on things we can sell to get the 10-20% of funding for the things we think are most important to do ....


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.


4. I mostly lurk here, since being more actively involved in the early
days of numpy docs,

I remember, that's what got me involved in the first place - thanks again for that:)

so maybe this one  has been tried already, or is in
the works.  My apologies if so.

No we haven't tried it, perhaps we should.


Think of development as a product to buy.  You could put chunks of
development up for sale, advertise them, and coordinate one or more
groups buying them together.  For something like an efficiency boost,
you could price it according to the avoided cost of CPU resources for a
project of a given size (e.g., somewhat below the net present value of
avoided future AWS cycles for the projects buying it).  It would be like
buying a custom-built data pipeline, except that once you buy it,
everyone gets it.  This might mean scoping out a roadmap of
improvements, packaging them into fundable projects with teams ready to
go, pricing them, advertising them to specific customers and in trade
media and shows, and making sales pitches.

This sounds good. It's what I hope places like Quansight Labs (where I just started working) can help with. Same for Ursa Labs (focuses on Apache Arrow, may connect back to Pandas) and Quantstack (xtensor numpy-like C++ lib, a faster conda solver, ...).

And with our roadmaps maturing and all projects now being under the NumFOCUS umbrella (except scikit-learn, which has its own nonprofit), this may become a way of the future. Jupyter is already further along this path. We still have some growing up to do though:)


This sounds really weird to us scientists, but it would work just like a
regular purchase for services, which the government and industry are
much more used to doing than donations to open-source projects.

Don't just sell what the customer is buying, sell in the manner that the
customer likes to buy.

:)

Thanks for the feedback Joe!

Cheers,
Ralf


5. And, keep trying grant proposals to NSF!

--jh--

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers


On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf


_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Steve Waterbury

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Steve Waterbury

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...

Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion




_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!

Ralf


Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Mark Mikofski-2
Hi Ralf, and others,

Sorry for the late notice, but there is are several funding opportunities in solar, including one for $350,000 to develop open source software to lower soft costs of solar.
see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the recording the password is "Setofoa2019" it's about 30 minutes long.

I know that this is a extremely niche, but as a few others have said, [the DOE] grants tend to be very specific, but perhaps we can creatively think of ways to channel funds to NumPy and SciPy.

Also there is a cost share that is typically 20%, which would be a non-starter for volunteer projects.

But here's an idea, perhaps partnering with a company, like mine (DNV GL) who is applying for the grant, and who uses NumPy,and could pay the cost share, and then we collaborate on something that is required to complete the project, which is contributed to NumPy (or SciPy) - but we would have to figure what we could align on.

Seems like NumFOCUS, Quantsight, or some other company in the OSS space could figure out ways to help connect companies, OSS projects, and funding opportunities like these, where there's a possibility of alignment and mutual benefit?

The full list of funding opportunities is here:

Best Regards,
Mark 
 

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!

Ralf


Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
Fiat Lux

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

SETO_FY19_FOA_Applicant_Webinar_Topic_Area_3_-_Balance_of_Systems_Soft_Costs_Reduction.pdf (1M) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
In reply to this post by ralfgommers
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)

Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government support for SciPY Stack development?

-CHB
 
--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Mark Mikofski-2
In reply to this post by Mark Mikofski-2
Sorry, that last attachment was just a slide show of the topic 3 recording, here is the full funding opportunity announcement - letter with 200 word abstract are due May 7th

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:40 AM Mark Mikofski <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ralf, and others,

Sorry for the late notice, but there is are several funding opportunities in solar, including one for $350,000 to develop open source software to lower soft costs of solar.
see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the recording the password is "Setofoa2019" it's about 30 minutes long.

I know that this is a extremely niche, but as a few others have said, [the DOE] grants tend to be very specific, but perhaps we can creatively think of ways to channel funds to NumPy and SciPy.

Also there is a cost share that is typically 20%, which would be a non-starter for volunteer projects.

But here's an idea, perhaps partnering with a company, like mine (DNV GL) who is applying for the grant, and who uses NumPy,and could pay the cost share, and then we collaborate on something that is required to complete the project, which is contributed to NumPy (or SciPy) - but we would have to figure what we could align on.

Seems like NumFOCUS, Quantsight, or some other company in the OSS space could figure out ways to help connect companies, OSS projects, and funding opportunities like these, where there's a possibility of alignment and mutual benefit?

The full list of funding opportunities is here:

Best Regards,
Mark 
 

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!

Ralf


Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
Fiat Lux


--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
Fiat Lux

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

DE-FOA-0002064_FY19_SETO_FOA.pdf (4M) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Steve Waterbury
In reply to this post by Chris Barker - NOAA Federal

Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.

Steve

On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)

Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government support for SciPY Stack development?

-CHB
 
--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:56 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.

OK< that's two of us :-)

NumFocus folk: Should we take this off the list and talk about a BoF or something at SciPy?

-CHB



 

Steve

On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)

Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government support for SciPY Stack development?

-CHB
 
--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

Joe Harrington
In reply to this post by ralfgommers

Just to keep people in the loop, Ralf and I are in discussion with people at NASA HQ about a funding stream for core development.  Ralf has put together a short description of the development and funding model (5 core projects, 10-20 core developers each, nearly all volunteer now, how NumFOCUS fits in, what we hope to establish from NASA vs. from other agencies, industry, other countries' science entities, etc.).  That will circulate within the agency, to see what can be scraped together.  Program managers in NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) gave quite-positive feedback on how vital the Python ecosystem is to NASA's mission.  We're emphasizing the need for both new functionality and maintenance (e.g., docs, web site, bug fixing).  If this is ultimately successful, it can be a model for approaching other agencies in the US and elsewhere.

To Steve's point, regarding how hard it is for Civil Servants to contribute to OSS (due to NASA's lengthy internal review process for releasing software), this problem was clearly called out in the Academies report.  We proposed some solutions to streamline things.  What's needed now is for NASA Civil Servants to take that report and the relevant white papers (cited in the report and posted online) to their center's senior management, and to NASA HQ, and similarly for others in government agencies.  You may wish to start from NASA's (or your agency's) mission, which includes sharing technology openly to boost the economy, and how you are encountering unreasonable barriers to that goal.  This is mandated by the National Air and Space Act of 1958.

For example, there is little reason to conduct an export-control review with lawyers looking at code emerging from a group that has nothing to do with anything near an export-controlled topic.  Universities and contractors are subject to the same export-control laws as NASA, and they have not routinely conducted similar reviews of every line of code released.  This has not led to a pattern of export violations.  (Whether there is any benefit at all to the export control laws as applied to software is debatable, since it's usually easy for coders elsewhere to write the same codes, but the law is the law.)

--jh--

On 5/3/19 12:48 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
Subject:
Re: [Numpy-discussion] grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)
From:
Mark Mikofski [hidden email]
Date:
5/3/19, 12:47 PM
To:
Discussion of Numerical Python [hidden email]

Sorry, that last attachment was just a slide show of the topic 3 recording, here is the full funding opportunity announcement - letter with 200 word abstract are due May 7th

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:40 AM Mark Mikofski <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ralf, and others,

Sorry for the late notice, but there is are several funding opportunities in solar, including one for $350,000 to develop open source software to lower soft costs of solar.
see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the recording the password is "Setofoa2019" it's about 30 minutes long.

I know that this is a extremely niche, but as a few others have said, [the DOE] grants tend to be very specific, but perhaps we can creatively think of ways to channel funds to NumPy and SciPy.

Also there is a cost share that is typically 20%, which would be a non-starter for volunteer projects.

But here's an idea, perhaps partnering with a company, like mine (DNV GL) who is applying for the grant, and who uses NumPy,and could pay the cost share, and then we collaborate on something that is required to complete the project, which is contributed to NumPy (or SciPy) - but we would have to figure what we could align on.

Seems like NumFOCUS, Quantsight, or some other company in the OSS space could figure out ways to help connect companies, OSS projects, and funding opportunities like these, where there's a possibility of alignment and mutual benefit?

The full list of funding opportunities is here:

Best Regards,
Mark 
 

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!

Ralf


Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion




_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers
In reply to this post by Steve Waterbury


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:55 PM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.

Steve

On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)

Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government support for SciPY Stack development?
That would be very useful. Would you be interested to co-organize this Chris?

 Cheers,
Ralf

-CHB
 
--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers
In reply to this post by Mark Mikofski-2


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:49 PM Mark Mikofski <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sorry, that last attachment was just a slide show of the topic 3 recording, here is the full funding opportunity announcement - letter with 200 word abstract are due May 7th

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:40 AM Mark Mikofski <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ralf, and others,

Sorry for the late notice, but there is are several funding opportunities in solar, including one for $350,000 to develop open source software to lower soft costs of solar.
see topic 3.4 specifically in attached PDF - also note to view the recording the password is "Setofoa2019" it's about 30 minutes long.

Thanks for bringing up this opportunity Mark.


I know that this is a extremely niche, but as a few others have said, [the DOE] grants tend to be very specific, but perhaps we can creatively think of ways to channel funds to NumPy and SciPy.

I think I prefer to pass on this one. Not only because abstracts are due in 3 days, but mainly because it's not the best fit. Perhaps we'll be forced to partner with others on application-specific grants and goals at some point. However it would be much better (as I've said before) to obtain funding for what we really want and need rather than channeling some some proportion of a grant meant for something different into development of our projects.

My main goal at this point is getting clearer (also in written form) exactly what we need, then asking for exactly that. Format TBD - Chris' proposal of a BoF at SciPy may be a good forum to discuss.

Cheers,
Ralf


Also there is a cost share that is typically 20%, which would be a non-starter for volunteer projects.

But here's an idea, perhaps partnering with a company, like mine (DNV GL) who is applying for the grant, and who uses NumPy,and could pay the cost share, and then we collaborate on something that is required to complete the project, which is contributed to NumPy (or SciPy) - but we would have to figure what we could align on.

Seems like NumFOCUS, Quantsight, or some other company in the OSS space could figure out ways to help connect companies, OSS projects, and funding opportunities like these, where there's a possibility of alignment and mutual benefit?

The full list of funding opportunities is here:

Best Regards,
Mark 
 

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:52 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


Thanks for the input Stephen, and looking forward to see you at SciPy'19!

Ralf


Steve

On 5/2/19 9:45 PM, Stephen Waterbury wrote:

I am a NASA pythonista (for 20+ years ;), but you can now say you know
yet another person at NASA who has no idea this even exists ... :)
Not only do I not know of that, but I know of NASA policies that make
it very difficult for NASA civil servants to contribute to open source
projects -- quite hypocritical, given the amount of open source
code that NASA (like all other large organizations) depends critically
on, but it's a fact.

Cheers,
Steve Waterbury

(CLEARLY **NOT** SPEAKING IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR NASA OR
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE!  Hence the personal email
address. :)

On 5/2/19 9:31 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:

Sounds like this is a NASA specific thing, in which case, I guess someone at NASA would need to step up.

I’m afraid I know no pythonistas at NASA. 

But I’ll poke around NOAA to see if there’s anything similar.

-CHB

On Apr 25, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:41 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03 PM Joe Harrington <[hidden email]> wrote:


3. There's such a thing as a share-in-savings contract at NASA, in which
you calculate a savings, such as from avoided costs of licensing IDL or
Matlab, and say you'll develop a replacement for that product that costs
less, in exchange for a portion of the savings.  These are rare and few
people know about them, but one presenter to the committee did discuss
them and thought they'd be appropriate.  I've always felt that we could
get a chunk of change this way, and was surprised to find that the
approach exists and has a name.  About 3 of 4 people I talk to at NASA
have no idea this even exists, though, and I haven't pursued it to its
logical end to see if it's viable.

I've heard of these. Definitely worth looking into.

It seems to be hard to find any information about these share-in-savings contracts. The closest thing I found is this: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13463/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-removal-of-reference-to-the-shared-savings-policy-and

It is called "Shared Savings" there, and was replaced last year by something called "Value Engineering Change Proposal". If anyone can comment on whether that's the same thing as Joe meant and whether this is worth following up on, that would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Ralf

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
Fiat Lux


--
Mark Mikofski, PhD (2005)
Fiat Lux
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: grant proposal for core scientific Python projects (rejected)

ralfgommers
In reply to this post by ralfgommers


On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 12:24 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:55 PM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sure, I would be interested to discuss, let's try to meet up there.

Steve

On 5/3/19 12:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 PM Ralf Gommers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:49 AM Stephen Waterbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

P.S.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion at SciPy 2019,
I will be there (on my own nickel!  ;) ...


So will I (on NOAA's nickel, which I am grateful for)

Maybe we should hold a BoF, or even something more formal, on Government support for SciPY Stack development?
That would be very useful. Would you be interested to co-organize this Chris?

Okay never mind, this is apparently happening already: https://hackmd.io/YbxTpC1ZT_aEapTqydmHCA. Please jump in there instead:)

Ralf


 Cheers,
Ralf

-CHB
 
--

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
12